Jill Stein may cost the Dems the election.

[Jnew28]

Via: http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2016/08/voting-jill-stein-dont.html

"I’ll say it again. Voting for Jill Stein? Don’t.

I would guess that I am in the top 1% when it comes down to my personal green credentials. Friends have told me that my most likely fate will be a family member smothering a pillow over me as I sleep–driven to madness by my efforts to ban the use of the dryer, AC in the summer, central heating in the winter, insistence on LED lighting, complaints that Americans have not figured out how to make energy efficient double hung windows, my loathing of Hummer drivers, and my excitement that from 2025 on, Norway will ban the sale of newly manufactured fossil Cars.

Al Gore: If You Care About The Climate Crisis, Don’t Vote For A Third Party

“In my experience, it matters a lot.”

I used to give large sums to environmental charities, but then I was struck by a depressing thought. What’s the point of hugging a tree if G.W. Bush is President? He and his kin will devote the full force of the US Government to maintaining an energy policy that has created today’s mess and promoting an environmental policy designed to destroy the environment. I felt that I had a higher calling. My “God” (ha) told me that I must tackle the problem at the root. Expose and destroy StupidParty. Therefore to protect the planet, to protect humanity, I had to devote all my energies to taking the Stupid out of StupidParty. I do not really care who gets in the way of this objective–all such barriers must be destroyed even it that means going after a fellow “greeny”— if they are a threat to my planet, my home."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Nope. This is just clickbait.

Jill Stein is a dingbat. Hardly anybody is voting for her.

[Jnew28]

2. The protest vote may be stronger than we anticipate. n/t

[Demsrule86]

15. Bullshit.

Jill Stein is a Trumpette....she is campaigning for Trump. Protest by voting for her...a green who invests in the oil industry? hahahaha

[Hortensis]

21. Nonsense. Hillary's going to win big.

Stein's presence on the ballot will make no difference.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. The only people protest voting are true fanatical dumbshits

She'll get less than 0.5%

[secondwind]

27. Not going to happen. n/t

[Raster]

3. Concur. Tofu Palin.

[Jnew28]

4. LOL - damn, that was good. n/t

[longship]

5. Yup! More blog flogging from this one.

Every post this one makes links to his blog. Many have zero content except the link.

This is mindless self-promotion.

[Orsino]

38. And nary a word about the corrupt, lazy media who perpetuated the Clinton mythology?

No, that nasty Jill Stein went back in time and created the narratives. If she weren't so unutterably evil, that supreme competence would be just what we need!

[Egnever]

47. Yup been going on for months now

[pnwmom]

12. Ralph Nader, Green party, swung the election with 2.85% of the vote.

Including a critical 95,000 votes in Florida.

So don't assume Stein couldn't affect this election, if it remains this close.

And just to make matters clear, she says Trump is a better option than Hillary. She is our enemy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Ralph Nader had an actual campaign

He filled Madison Square Garden two weeks before the 2000 election.

Jill Stein is phoning in kooky interviews from her front porch. She'll be lucky to get 0.5%.

[TrekLuver]

26. She said WHAT? That's it she is out of the will!

[jiminvegas]

6. Not afraid of jill

Or her 3 supporters.

[Jnew28]

7. LOL. n/t

[anamandujano]

9. Hillary has got all kinds of plans for clean energy programs and the jobs that go with them.

She also makes a point of listening to everybody. Add to that, Bernie has her ear.

Hillary needs a mandate with the popular vote. Don't waste your vote.

[Raine]

10. No she won't, her effect will be miniscule

she's getting way way less then Gary Johnson.

[pnwmom]

13. Ralph Nader only had 2.85% in 2000. That's more than the difference RCP is reporting right now.

And even if Hillary is ahead by more than that (as I believe), that doesn't mean Stein couldn't cause a loss in a critical state, like Nader did in Florida.

[randome]

25. She can't throw the election to Trump. But we need as much of a mandate as possible this time out.

If she does cost us one state, that could lessen the impact of Clinton's win.

And might lead to further Susan Sarandon tweets. We don't want that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFM008]

11. No

No.

[Grey Lemercier]

14. the one to be worried about is Johnson, much larger numbers and in most swing states is pulling

more from Cinton than Trump, overall as well. Just look at 2 way vs. 4 way polls. When 4 way, Clinton looses more than Trump

[Demsrule86]

17. Are you concerned?

[Grey Lemercier]

18. are you?

Snide remarks when a simple observation is posted do no one any good.

[Demsrule86]

30. Your observation is faulty...no way the Libertarian which is

conservatism on steroids is pulling Hillary's voters. As for 'does no one any good', makes me feel better to dampen 'concern' when it is misplaced and inaccurate and does not even make sense. I:t won't matter if Trump loses Florida and Utah...or even PA...bottom line is Trump has but one very narrow path and must run the table:he won't.

[Grey Lemercier]

33. Maybe you should be like others and actually look at the data before you launch

presuppositions and theories you have, as well as subtle attacks on me, which are profoundly unwarranted as I have busted my ass, along with my wife, to get the American ex pat community here in London to vote for Sec. Clinton.

Back to your reply......

Your basic core logic is wrong. You are so skewed to seeing things in 2 dimensions that you assume (and I quote)

"no way the Libertarian which is conservatism on steroids is pulling Hillary's voters"

Leaving aside the fact there are many libertarians on the left (I am NOT saying that the big L USA Libertarian party has many, but there are many libertarian socialists and anarchists, especially here in the EU), you assume that the people who switch from Clinton (when it is purely TWO choices) to Johnson (when it is 4 candidates) are "Hillary voters". I posit many many ARE NOT, they are centre right and moderate Repubs and independents who NORMALLY would vote Rethug (think Romney) BUT when only given TWO choices (ie. Clinton and the shitgibbon) they bite the bullet and choose Sec Clinton. As soon as a 3rd or 4th option is available, they bail, at least poll wise.

Here is just one example:

4-way

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 45, Trump 46, Johnson 3, Stein 2 Trump +1

2-way
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton ABC/Wash Post Tracking Clinton 48, Trump 47 Clinton +1


In the 2 way race Clinton is at 48%, Trump at 47%

In the 4-Way race
Johnson (3%) Stein (2%) add up to 5%

but Clinton drops 3% AND Trump only drops 1% when those 2 are added in, and clintons drop is greater than just Stein, PLUS if Johnson (the greater of the small third party duo) was pulling only from Trump (your hypothesis) Trump should drop even more than clinton, and he is not.

Also, you brought up Utah. The ONLY thing Utah matters for is keeping Trump from hitting 270, but as it will not go to Sec. Clinton, it has zero effect on her totals. The only thing Utah can do is is get him to 270 (and thus avoid the House voting him POTUS)in ONE (the only one he hits 270) of the 6 scenarios where Trump can win. The other 5 all have it going to the House, as Clinton fails (by either 1 or 2 EV's max, of hitting 270 in them).

I give all 6 scenarios here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512552418


In ALL six, Trump HAS to take New Hampshire (tough) and SWEEP

NEVADA <<< tough
ARIZONA
TEXAS
IOWA
MISSOURI
INDIANA
OHIO
FLORIDA <<<< tough
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA <<<tough
ALASKA

If Hillary takes Nebraska 2nd district and Trump loses Maine 2nd (he is 4 to 8 points up last I saw, and that was pre Comey ratfuck), he is toast too.


This ALL is provided (at the time I wrote it all 4 were dead locks for Sec Clinton) that we sweep WI, PA, VA, and MI, which I think is a 96, 97% likelihood.Pennsylvania is the shakiest, and still really looking solid for Sec Clinton.

[Demsrule86]

39. I have looked at much data and not cherry picked it to show the result I want.

Those who vote for the Libertarian were never voting for Hillary or any Democrat.

[Grey Lemercier]

41. You are just wrong in your framing, I will not allow you to misrepresent what

I orginally said. Furthermore, I didnt cherry pick that poll, it has been the biggest poll story for days, and it also shows exactly what I positited in my initial rejoinder.

But you knew that.

[Demsrule86]

43. Also, there is no such thing as a left leaning libertarian...the positions are completely opposite..

Anyone who calls himself progressive but votes libertarian is confused...and is not a progressive. Libertarians are worse than the GOP actually.

[Grey Lemercier]

49. Binary think much? Let me help you out to the varied world of political philosophy.

No such thing as left libertarianism and libertarian Socialism?

I get so frustrated when people often, so often in the USA, (I am US-born but London raised since age of 2, and live there as we speak) see things thru simplified black and white, hard-line delineated worldviews, worldviews that always seen to straightjacket human philosophical nuance, diversity and variance. I call it the "Cliff-Noting" or, to use our British version, the "York-Noting" of political discourse.

For sake of convenience I start here, as the Wikipedia page has been so much improved over the years and provides a good entry-level gateway.

Left-libertarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to political and social theory, which stresses both individual freedom and social equality. In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, either anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular.[1][2] It later became associated with free-market libertarians when Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s.[3] This left-wing market anarchism, which includes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration, and environmentalism.[1] Most recently, left-libertarianism refers to mostly non-anarchist political positions associated with Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[4]

Left-libertarians state that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[5][6] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, vegetation) should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.[6]

snip (MUCH more at the link)


Libertarian socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Libertarian socialism (sometimes dubbed socialist libertarianism,[1] or left-libertarianism[2][3]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[4] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[5] as well as the state itself.[6] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace.[7] Instead, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace[6] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10] It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[11] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[12][13] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[14] and voluntary human relationships[15] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

Past and present political philosophies and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[24] and mutualism[25]) as well as autonomism, communalism, participism, guild socialism,[26] revolutionary syndicalism, and libertarian Marxist[27] philosophies such as council communism[28] and Luxemburgism;[29] as well as some versions of "utopian socialism"[30] and individualist anarchism.

snip (MUCH more at the link)


Here are some links on left wing libertarians, libertarian socialists, anarcho-socialists, etc:


Hillel Steiner

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/hillel.steiner/

https://freedomcenter.arizona.edu/hillel-steiner

http://www.analyse-und-kritik.net/1995-1/AK_Steiner_2_1995.pdf




Michael Otsuka

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/OTSUKAM/

How to be a Libertarian without being Inegalitarian

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/OTSUKAM/Introduction_Raisons_Politiques.pdf



Peter Vallentyne

http://klinechair.missouri.edu/cv.pdf

Left-Libertarianism as a Promising Form of Liberal Egalitarianism

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Vallentyne/publication/266605141_Left-Libertarianism_as_a_Promising_Form_of_Liberal_Egalitarianism/links/55c4ac6a08aebc967df378ac.pdf?inViewer=0&pdfJsDownload=0&origin=publication_detail


Philippe Van Parijs

http://www.uclouvain.be/en-11688.html

The Need for Basic Income: An Interview with Philippe Van Parijs

http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/vanparijsinterview.html


Noam Chomsky (he has called his libertarian socialism an anarchist philosophy)

http://planetchomsky.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other links to left forms of democratic workplaces and social structuring within a libertarian-socialist sphere:


"The Democratic Worker-Owned Firm" by David Ellerman

http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/demofirm.doc



"Libertarianism Without Inequality" by Michael Otsuka

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23749-libertarianism-without-inequality/


Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried

PETER VALLENTYNE,
HILLEL STEINER, AND
MICHAEL OTSUKA

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/OTSUKAM/leftlibP&PA.pdf

---------------


http://newpol.org /

New Politics, published since 1986 as a semi-annual, follows in the tradition established in its first series (1961-1978) as an independent socialist forum for dialogue and debate on the left. It is committed to the advancement of the peace and anti-intervention movements. It stands in opposition to all forms of imperialism, and is uncompromising in its defense of feminism and affirmative action. In our pages there is broad coverage of labor and social movements, the international scene, as well as emphasis on cultural and intellectual history.

Above all, New Politics insists on the centrality of democracy to socialism and on the need to rely on mass movements from below for progressive social transformation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance.

Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace .

Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."


– Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947


http://www.iwa-ait.org /

http://www.iww.org /

http://workersolidarity.org /

--------------------------------------------------------------------
More left libertarians and anarcho socialists:

Cornelius Castoriadis

http://www.agorainternational.org

Antonio Negri

http://www.generation-online.org/t/translations.htm#negribm


Murray Bookchin

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/bio1.html


Arran Gare

(eco libertarian socialism)

http://swinburne.academia.edu/ArranGare

Gare's review of

Towards an Inclusive Democracy: the Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/english/brbooks/brtid/gare_urpe_winter_02.htm

[Demsrule86]

42. He is the problem: you assume

that if you look at a poll with four and two...that you can subtract the difference and see who is hurt or not...it doesn't work that way at all. And I strongly disagree with some of your assertions and am confused as to your motive in these matters.

[Grey Lemercier]

50. lol, you like the argy bargy

It's not my fault that you choose not to read, and make ludicrous statements regarding the non existence of left wing libertarian and libertarian socialist political philosophy, nor seem to be capable of basic math, nor capable of following my cogent explanation above of who and why is vote switching.

As for my motivation, I suggest your peruse around the board and look at my postings, many to do with the near impossibility of a Trump win. I simply, in this thread, raised what I believe to be a valid point, (oh, the horror!, I like to engage in fruitful debate, well isn't that presumptive of me!) and you have, for some reason become kinda stalky(if truth be told) with your rejoinders, ie. multiple replies to the same post, spaced out over time, like you went and had dinner, then came back to tippy tap type away some more naff thoughts.

[JTFrog]

35. Lol. Dumb as rocks is not a threat. nt

[moriah]

45. Not quite -- I think those polls are actually reflecting Conservatives faced with Clinton or Trump.

The RCP polls done by the same people with two way and four-way races, ABC/WaPo and Economist/YouGov, show Hillary either staying ahead or the same, and Johnson supporters who can't bring themselves to vote for Trump most likely going back to undecideds

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

On the ABC two-way, where Stein had 2% and Johnson 3%, with 3% still undecided on the four-way, had Clinton up 2 more percentage points, Trump up one, and 5% undecided. The two percent extra undecideds were unlikely to be Stein supporters, but instead Johnson people who couldn't bring themselves to say Trump.

On the Yougov one, where in the four way Johnson getting 4% and Stein 2%, with 5% undecided, went on the two-way to Clinton up 2%, Trump up 2%, and 7% undecided. Again, the extra undecideds seem to be Conservative voters who can't make themselves support Trump.

I'm having a hard time finding two polls done by the same pollsters over the same time period in states doing a similar comparison. But it looks like the trend is Stein voters going overwhelmingly to Clinton in a two-way poll, and some Johnson voters going to Trump but the rest not being able to decide on either.

[Demsrule86]

16. Right because someone who really cares about the environment would vote for a

fake Green and allow a guy who hates the environment to win...you should delete this.

[quaker bill]

19. She might crack the nearly impenetrable

1.0% barrier this time....

I would urge anyone to not vote for her because it is a waste of 15 minutes you could spend on something useful.

Voting for her does not even do the Green Party any good.

If the GP ever wants to become meaningful, it will spend its time growing locally, at a "bioregional" scale, and just flush all this national ambition for a few decades....

[Hortensis]

20. Large Dem win or landslide, Stein's a nuisance gadfly.

Btw, just putting a third-party name on a poll--reminding people that choice exists--garners about 1-2% on average of support that disappears on election day, when people get serious. So if Stein and whatshisface were genuinely, reliably polling 3% maybe 1-2% might stick with them.

This election I suspect it will be even less. Just one of the many ways people get silly and irresponsible, but a big one, is to decide they want to be part of something big merely because others are.

[Barack_America]

22. You really want us to go to that website.

2nd (3rd?) time I've seen you link it.

Thank, but, no thanks.

[Demsrule86]

31. I did not go to the website...the OP was enough for me...clickbait.

[JTFrog]

37. Yep. Obvious is obvious.

One more hidden post and they will never escape flagged for review.

[Egnever]

48. Been ongoing for months now

[budkin]

28. She won't even get 1%

[Gothmog]

29. A vote for stein or Johnson is a vote for trump

[Orsino]

32. Hillary Clinton will cost everyone else the election.

See how silly that framing sounds?

[Demsrule86]

40. Silly but true!

[JTFrog]

34. Lol. Fuck Jill Stein. Clickbait is obvious.

She is batshit crazy and not a threat. She might pick up a few BOBer's but there aren't enough of them left to make a dent in a city election let alone a national one.

[duffyduff]

36. Oh, FFS

Stein and Johnson are dipshits. Hell, you have Johnson's running mate practically endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, which tells you a lot of what he thinks of his running mate Johnson.

They are going to be non-factors, especially Stein. Few Democrats will vote third party this time.

[Joe941]

44. Susan Sarandon endorsed Jill Stein.

But she is a washed up actress with no influence anymore.

[William769]

46. Why does your other OP with the exact same body have a different headline?

A vote for Jill Stein is a a vote for Trump http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107178535

Inquiring minds want to know!